«

Article:
http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/.../?ref=business

Graphic:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...the-lytro.html

Image resolution is 1080x1080. Prints up to about 7 x 7 inches should
be reasonable looking - smaller would look sharper.

Drawbacks are required processing (special image format) and currently
the s/w is only available for Mac - Windows to follow later this year.

The author didn't say it, but I would guess that once you 'focused' in
the Lytro s/w that you could then export an image in JPG which could
then go into Photoshop or other editors. At worst, I guess, a screen
capture would do.

On the positive side, processed lytro images can be sent to anyone and
re-focused by anyone with that image file. That's cool.

The author above found it a bit awkward in handling.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

Alan Browne wrote:

> On the positive side, processed lytro images can be sent to anyone and
> re-focused by anyone with that image file. That's cool.
>

Really. Or is it anyone with special software or a compatible opersating
system build? Slightly cynical here.


> The author above found it a bit awkward in handling.
>

I'm sure SLR's nor compacts are optimal, but that just looks hard to hold
still.

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

On 2012-03-02 13:23 , Peter Chant wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> On the positive side, processed lytro images can be sent to anyone and
>> re-focused by anyone with that image file. That's cool.
>>
>
> Really. Or is it anyone with special software or a compatible opersating
> system build? Slightly cynical here.

The way I read it, is that the image you post, e-mail, whatever can be
manipulated by anyone.

(try the version on the NYT site or the Lytro site which is a flash
image. It's not clear if that's a derivative or the output of the Lytro
processing).


>
>
>> The author above found it a bit awkward in handling.
>>
>
> I'm sure SLR's nor compacts are optimal, but that just looks hard to hold
> still.

Agree - not sure why they picked that awkward form.


--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

Would you buy one?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 2012-03-02 18:08 , Alfred Molon wrote:
> Would you buy one?

I just might. It intrigues me both for the images and the unique
technology.

The thing that sticks out in the samples is that it seems the
photographers go out of their way to make photos esp. to demonstrate the
effect. And so would that cause me to look especially for subjects like
that? Would a dearth of such subjects be frustrating?

I kinda balk at the $400 for the lower end (less memory) version, too.
Not available in Canada yet either (though I could ship it to a
Plattsburgh, NY mail drop).

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.